Glue disappeared in a neck joint of a 100 year guitar?

[MJS]

I sold an old parlor guitar and loosened the strings before packing it into a box to ship. Upon receipt, the buyer said that the neck was loose and with the exception of a single drop of glue, wasn't even glued to the body of the guitar.  The guitar was built around 1900 by George Bauer and I had it tuned to pitch or just below pitch for years never had a problem with the neck coming off.  Could the glue have evaporated over the years and the knocking about during shipment without any tension on the neck caused the neck to separate from the body?  Shouldn't there still be evidence of glue on the tenon/mortise, even if it's evaporated?  Was Bauer so confident that his joint fit so well that he didn't even use glue in the neck joint?

Thanks!

[MJS]

Thanks, Paul.

Since I sent the guitar, I figured I had to do the paperwork, but obviously, I can't do much without the buyer's help.

Another fact that confuses me.  The buyer said on the first day that he got the guitar that he tuned up one string while in his car to get an idea about the tone (which I told him was amazing--it was the poor intonation that kept me from playing anything other than cowboy chords on it).  He agreed that it sounded great; it was the next day when he tried to tune two strings that he supposedly noticed that the neck was loose and was lifting.  If the neck was indeed loose/unglued, wouldn't it lift with even the tension of one string?

I'll post pictures if I ever get any.

Also, do you have George's email (-;

[Paul Verticchio]

As a matter of fact..George's e-mail is: [e-mail] (;

[Ned Knepp]

I figured you could get a hold of him by saying: George, George, George!

[Paul Verticchio]

That is the easiest way Ned, but once he shows up....y'just can't seem to get rid of the guy (:

[Ned Knepp]

I'm not sure how your buyer could make a judgment in the amount of glue in the neck joint if the fingerboard extension is still attached. 

Personally, I have purchased more than one instrument that already had the neck loose from the body with the intention of restoration. It isn't something I would complain about unless the joint has been destroyed in the process. At any rate, it still seems "fishy" to me and even more so now that the buyer thinks you packed it so well that an insurance claim would be a waste of time. I think he needs to make up his mind, did you pack it well or are you responsible for the supposed damaged. I'm not sure how it can be both ways.

[MJS]

I wondered the same thing--if the fretboard extension is still glued to the top of the soundboard, how could he lift the neck without cracking/breaking the fretboard extension in the process.  Even if he was able to lift it a little, I doubt he could lift high enough to get a good view of the tenon or mortise.

The buyer didn't claim that there was any damage to the joint and I would assume that things are very clean since he claimed that it looked like there was no glue (and therefore I assume no damage from wood being torn by the glue). Also, assuming that if the glue dried out from the neck joint, shouldn't the glue from the other parts of the guitar, most notably the braces, have dried out as well? He has made no mention of anything else that is unglued.

The buyer wants to keep the guitar, he just wants a partial refund--guess he wants it all!

[William F.Eden]

Don't nock yourself out about the Guitar anymore just forget it and go on with your life you will never make this guy happy anyway Good luck with your next sale Bill.............

[Frank Ford]

Looks like I'm late to this party - I was at the Roberto-Venn School in Phoenix, so I didn't see this discussion until now.  

It sounds to me as though you sent a guitar that may have had its neck jarred loose in transit.  Not an uncommon situation with instruments of this age, particularly those with less than perfect dovetail joinery.  It's very likely that the recipient has little or no experience with this kind of thing and is simply misinterpreting what he sees.  For one, it would be impossible to see the entire joint unless the neck is completely off the guitar, and for another, he might simply not know what an old glue joint looks like, even if the interior is exposed.  So, the "lack of glue" is undoubtedly a lack of accurate reporting, and should be ignored.  That said, the looseness is likely to have been the same thing - maybe noticeable under low or no tension to a trained eye immediately, and more obvious when that second string was tightened.

I believe  you are obligated by law to refund money on goods you sell that are not "as described," although such laws are often difficult to enforce.  Because the discrepancy between your description and the buyer's can be attributed to shipping damage, it might be necessary to file a claim on shipping insurance.  That's where his "partial refund" lies.  

You can play your part any way you choose, and as a seller of instruments, I've faced this issue a number of times.  WIth no way to have solid evidence of what's up, I usually simply tell the buyer to return the item and I'll reimburse shipping both ways.  The matter is ended easily that way, although I lose a few bucks.  If the buyer wants a refund that's significantly less than my shipping costs, I may take that option. Sometimes I'll stand fast and absolutely refuse any partial refund, insisting return with shipping reimbursed or nothing.  That's a gamble, of course, but it does work if the buyer is only trying to "work a deal."

Now, I have a continuing need to preserve a good reputation, so I always keep an eye on that aspect of the deal.

You could opt to stonewall any effort on his part, and maybe he'll simply let the matter go after a while.  Or,  you could possibly cook up some kind of compromise so a lose-lose proposition seems less painful to both of  you.  

There's nothing about this deal that's life-changing, so I surely wouldn't spend much time thinking about it.  As Mr. Eden says, ". . .just forget it and go on with your life. . ."

[MJS]

Again, thanks to all who responded.

I told the buyer that I had played the guitar for years and never had a problem with the neck (in fact I had played it one last time just before sending it off). While I agree that I should be responsible if the guitar was not as described, I described the guitar as accurately as I could and had included around a dozen pictures. 

If the buyer is too inexperienced to understand what he is seeing, I'm not going to take on that responsibility.  If the guitar arrived damaged, it happened in transit and any refund would need to come from the shipping company.  I told the the buyer that if he wants any money back, he'll have to send me pictures so I can file a claim.  Since he is unwilling, and it seems most people who have contributed to this discussion think the buyer is not to be trusted, I will not do anything beyond filing a claim.

[Chris Rochow]

I'm with Kerry and Thomas!  Smells like a scam!   Once it is out of your hands, hard telling what the buyer has done to it too !

I vote no refund of any sort ! Peroid!

[MJS]

Thanks, Chris.

I'm putting the ball in the buyer's court to prove that there is existing damage and that the damage likely happened in the last couple of weeks. If the shipper jolted the neck loose or if the buyer let the guitar sit in a hot car, I can't be held responsible.  Again, I want to be fair but I need evidence, not just an email message.

[Kerry Krishna]

 This really does have 'scam' written all over it. If he sends no pictures, then there is absolutely nothing more to talk about.  

Tell him that too, get a response, and act accordingly. I am willing to bet money that he will not send pics, because there IS no damage.